Civic Conscience, Selective Conscientious Objection and Lack of Choice

Nehushtan, Yossi

Abstract

Most democratic states tolerate, to various extents, conscientious objection. The same states tend not to tolerate acts of civil disobedience and what they perceive as selective conscientious objection. In this paper it is claimed that the dichotomy between civil disobedience and conscientious objection is often misguided; that the existence of a “civic conscience” makes it impossible to differentiate between conscientious objection and civil disobedience; and that there is no such thing as “selective” conscientious objection—or that classifying an objection as “selective” has no significant moral or practical implications. These claims are supported by a preliminary, more general argument according to which conscientious objection is and should be tolerated because the objector lacks the ability to choose his conscience and to decide whether to act upon it. The lack-of-choice argument, it is claimed, applies equally to all types of conscientious objection, including those that are mistakenly called “selective” objection. It also applies to one type of civil disobedience. As a result, if a state is willing to tolerate non-selective conscientious objection, it may and at times must also tolerate selective conscientious objection and (one type of) civil disobedience and to a similar degree (all other things being equal).

Citation

Nehushtan, Y. (2017). Civic Conscience, Selective Conscientious Objection and Lack of Choice. Ratio Juris, 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12184

• Acceptance Date: Sep 4, 2017
• Publication Date: Nov 22, 2017
• Journal: Ratio Juris
• Print ISSN: 0952-1917
• Publisher: Wiley
• Pages: 433-450
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12184
• Publisher URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12184